Gå til innholdScholarGate
BibliotekMitt bibliotekPultenReview StudioAssistent
Logg inn
Team Faultline Measurement/Bevis
Metodebevisregister

Team Faultline Measurement

Team faultline measurement quantifies the hypothetical dividing lines that can split a work group into relatively homogeneous subgroups based on the alignment of several member attributes at once. Dora Lau and Keith Murnighan introduced the faultline concept in 1998, arguing that what matters is not how diverse a group is on any single attribute but how strongly multiple attributes line up to create a clean cleavage — for example, when all the older members are also the men and the engineers, while all the younger members are the women and the marketers. Thatcher, Jehn, and Zanutto operationalized the idea in 2003 with the Fau index of faultline strength and a companion measure of faultline distance, and tested their effects on conflict and performance. Later work by Meyer and Glenz compared the proliferating measures and proposed an average-silhouette-width approach that can handle more than two subgroups. The method turns an intuition about subgroup splits into a reproducible number that can be entered into models of team process and outcomes.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Kilderegister

Siteringer kopiert ordrett fra metodens kilderegister. Ingen påstandsnivåverifisering er underforstått fra dem.

Team Faultline Measurement (Hypothetical Dividing Lines in Work Group Composition)
Taksonomisk metoderegister · process-pipeline / organizational-behavior
  • Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325-340. · DOI 10.5465/amr.1998.533229
  • Thatcher, S. M. B., Jehn, K. A., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks in diversity research: The effects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(3), 217-241. · DOI 10.1023/A:1023325406946
  • Meyer, B., & Glenz, A. (2013). Team faultline measures: A computational comparison and a new approach to multiple subgroups. Organizational Research Methods, 16(3), 393-424. · DOI 10.1177/1094428113484970
Åpne full metode

Kuraterte påstander

Påstander lagret i bevishovedboken, hver med sin egen vurdering.

Ingen kuraterte påstander ennå

Denne visningen finner ikke opp en påstandsvurdering når hovedboken ikke har noen.

Relaterte metoder

Generert fra metodegrafen og vist som maskinforslåtte relasjoner – ingen bevispåstand er underforstått.

Same method familyMultitrait-Multimethod Matrixmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyOrganizational Network Analysismachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Used in the same domainPsychological Empowerment Scalemachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Bevisstatus

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Kilder

3 registrerte siteringer, kopiert fra metodens kilderegister.

Handlinger

Åpne metodeside
ScholarGate

Et innholdsfokusert oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder — hva hver metode er, hvordan den fungerer, og hvor den kommer fra.

Åpne data (CC-BY)

Oppdag

  • Bibliotek
  • Søk i metoder…
  • Bla etter fagfelt
  • Fagfelt
  • Reise
  • Sammenlign
  • Hvilken metode?

Referanse

  • Fagområder
  • Atlas
  • Ordliste
  • Metodikk
  • Filosofi

Arbeidsområde

  • Mitt bibliotek
  • Pulten
  • Chat

Selskap

  • Om
  • Priser
  • Kontakt
  • Foreslå en metode

Oppføringene er sammenstilt fra publiserte kilder til referansebruk. Å kontrollere at informasjonen er korrekt og egnet for ditt eget bruk, er fremdeles ditt eget ansvar.

© 2026 ScholarGate · Et oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder
  • Personvern
  • Informasjonskapsler
  • Vilkår
  • Slett konto